Thought: Even with the introduction of the uncertainty principle our choices are still based on causality, because a choice must have meaning and a cause gives meaning.
I could be wrong but so far I cannot find a viable alternative for causality that will give us the ability to make a meaningful choice.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zyr
Well it's lucky we're talking about an omniscient being then isn't it? If the omniscient being see's the world as falalistic, then he know's what's going to happen, and to him the world is mechanical. With the introduction of an omniscient being, won't becomes can't, whether you know it or not.
But, as I've said, a few times now, depending on your definition of free will, this may or may not restrict it.
|
As I stated earlier, it seems that the transition from "won't" to "can't" is more gramatical then anything else. I just don't see any strings being attached to our actions with the introduction of the omniscient being.
What is cause of fatalism with the introduction of an omniscient being?
Even though I stated that an omniscient creator might introduce fatalism I am not alltogether conviced of that idea. If the omniscient being is a creator, it seems that we don't have a choice.
Yet if we eliminate the being and simply state that the world started at some point what changes? What
causes us to be free or bound to fatalism?
If the execution and the result are identical in both cenarios why does it mater?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
One is the simple observation that if we're going to be consistent here, the word 'know' is the two sentences "I know x" and "An omniscient being knows x" has to mean the same thing.
|
Your attempt to be "consistant" results in x = y. As I stated earlier, ultimate knowledge is actually knowing that you cannot be wrong. The only way to achive this level of knowledge is to be omniscient.
"He not only knows everything, he knows that he knows everything." - this the the key idea.
Our knowledge is finite and limited. Our experiences can be flawed and missleading. Even if you went back to the past with knowledge of the pressent your knowledge of events could be flawed and it would most certainly be incomplete. Thus if you wen't back in time you would not be 100% sure of future events. You will have a faith that things would repeat themselves.
What this means is that your knowledge of future events will always be akin to a prediction. Thus our limited knowledge will never cause fatalism. Even if we predict something a great number of times and we are never wrong there is still a chance that we will be wrong next time.
Now suppose we have a finite world. Suppose we have a God that knows everything there is to know of the finite world. Which means that this God's knowledge is finite as well. How would this God know that she is not missing some piece of information?